Posted on 08/18/2011 7:18:16 AM PDT by marshmallow
So why is the seal of confession inviolable? Why does the seal bind under such a grave obligation that the Church excommunicates any confessor who directly violates it? (See: The seal of confession: some basics)
There are two principal reasons why the priest must preserve the seal: the virtue of justice and the virtue of religion. The motive of justice is evident because the penitent, by the very fact of entering the confessional, or asking the priest to hear his confession (we’ll deal with “reconciliation rooms” another day) rightly expects that the priest will observe the seal. This is a contract entered into by the fact of the priest agreeing to hear a person’s confession. To mandate the violation of the seal is in effect to prohibit the celebration of the sacrament of Penance.
Much more grave than the obligation of justice towards the penitent is the obligation of religion due to the sacrament. The Catholic Encyclopaedia gives a brief explanation of the virtue of religion which essentially summarises the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas. (Summa Theologica 2a 2ae q.81) Religion is a moral virtue by which we give to God what is His due; it is, as St Thomas says, a part of justice. In the case of the sacrament of Penance, instituted by Christ, Fr Felix Cappello explains things well [my translation]:
By the very fact that Christ permitted, nay ordered, that all baptised sinners should use the sacrament and consequently make a secret confession, he granted an absolutely inviolable right, transcending the order of natural justice, to use this remedy. Therefore the knowledge which was their own before confession, after the communication made in confession, remains their own for every non-sacramental use, and that by a power altogether sacred, which no contrary human law can strike out, since every human law is of an inferior order: whence this right cannot be taken away or overridden by any means, or any pretext, or any motive.
The penitent confesses his sins to God through the priest. If the seal were to be broken under some circumstances, it would put people off the sacrament and thereby prevent them from receiving the grace that they need in order to repent and amend their lives. It would also, and far more importantly, obstruct the will of God for sinners to make use of the sacrament of Penance and thereby enjoy eternal life. The grace of the sacrament is absolutely necessary for anyone who commits a mortal sin. To mandate the violation of the seal is in effect to prohibit the practice of the Catholic faith. Some secular commentators have spoken of the seal of confession as being somehow a right or privilege of the priest. That is a preposterous misrepresentation: it is a sacred and inviolable duty that the priest must fulfil for the sake of the penitent and for the sake of God's will to redeem sinners.
A possibly misleading phrase in this context is where theologians say that the penitent is confessing his sins as if to God "ut Deo." (You can easily imagine secularists deriding the idea that the priest makes himself to be a god etc.) In truth, the penitent is confessing his sins before God. The priest acts as the minister of Christ in a sacred trust which he may not violate for any cause - precisely because he is not in fact God. By virtue of the penitent’s confession ut Deo, the priest absolves the penitent and, if mortal sin is involved, thereby readmits him to Holy Communion.
There will be more to follow on the sacrament of confession. As I mentioned in my previous post, this series is not intended as a guide for making a devout confession but rather as an introduction to some canonical and theological questions regarding the sacrament which have become important recently. (For a leaflet on how to make a good confession, see my parish website.)
I have been told that the threat in Ireland to introduce a law compelling priests to violate the seal of confession has been withdrawn, at least for the time being. Nevertheless, I will continue with these posts because I think that the Irish proposal will be picked up by other secularists and may pose a problem for us. Further posts will look at the proper place, time and vesture for hearing confessions, one or two more particular crimes in canon law, the question of jurisdiction and the much misused expression “Ecclesia supplet”, and, of course, what to do if the civil authority tries to compel a priest to break the seal.
Short answer: I have no clue.
When the Dominicans recently elected a "Master General" i.e.: honcho di tutti honchi of the entire order worldwide, they celebrated by singing the "O Spem Miram" (O Wonderful Hope). Before he died, as he was dying, Dominic said that he would do more for the order as an intercessor in heaven than he did as founder on earth.
Similarly Terese of Lisieux not only made a similar promise but predicted a miracle that would take place after she died. And it did.
So, we certainly HAVE to acknowledge that among our greatest heroes of the faith are those who died proclaiming what amounts to "blessed assurance."
Fr. Jacek (the Pole I referred to earlier -- who knows more about guns than I do and who likes Willy Nelson -- so you KNOW he's cool) referred to SOME aspects of "blessed Assurance" theology as "bottom line theology." (you would like this guy. He is very real. He's a chaplain at the U of A in Tucson now and I hope to visit him in the cold months.)
I don't KNOW, but just as I am confident that there are "ticket punched" Catholics who basically go around saying the Catholic version of "the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord" and who use the sacraments, God forgive them, as a way to keep God at a distance, I'm guessing there are "blessed Assurance" people who exploit the idea. I mean they say, in essence, "I had my rebirth; God and me are okay, so come 'ere, baby! Let's party -- I'm pre-forgiven!"
Fr. Jacek is right, I think, that it IS all about a personal encounter with Jesus. I think we would agree, yes? In one of our introductory classes for 'inquirers' I said that conversion is not an (just) an event but a lifestyle.
I know this sounds strange to some, but in my rosaries and offices (daily prayers), sacraments and whatnot, I am not often thinking about what will happen to me at the end.
Some wise person said, "All the way to heaven is heaven." So, by grace (I pray) I am not thinking so much about the final destination but about the kingdom and the Divine will right here and now. God is HERE! His Son is HERE. Come,let us adore him!
Nobody is forcing anyone to read the posts on this thread or “endure” anything. Get out of the pity party room.
I know the difference between being told I’m poorly catechized and being told I’m lying.
I stand by my statement although since that incident was almost two years ago, there’s simply no way to dig up the posts.
As far as being *poorly catechized*, I know exactly whose fault it is. That of the clergy in the parishes I attended who didn’t teach what you guys claim the Catholic church teaches, and didn’t correct the errors you guys claim we former Catholics keep making.
I rest my case!
I once heard the clerical boss of an RCIA class teach something specifically denounced in "Veritatis Splendor". The relevant part of this is "How did I know?" and the answer is, "I did my homework."
If you were called a liar, I regret it. But being said to be wrong about doctrine because you suffered lousy catechesis is not calling you a liar.
Again, I do know the difference and still stand by my statement.
Is this a case of not taking yes for an answer. You say you were called a liar. I’m surprised the RM missed it. If a Catholic called you a liar, that is wrong and I regret it.
BUT if you have appealed to poor catechesis as a defense from the charge of vincible ignorance or mendacity, that has an expiration date. Once you appeal to lousy catechesis, ypou cannot reasonably present yourself as an authority on the Doctrine of the Church.
If another Freeper calls you a liar on the Religion Form, send me a Freepmail.
I really appreciate your comments. As far as those who take for granted their salvation and use it as an excuse to sin are hardly the rule but the exception. Paul, speaking to the Roman church said:
Romans 5:6-11
You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
Romans 5:20,21
The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 6:1-
What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.
Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.
So, a person who uses grace as a license to sin does not have the truth of the Gospel and has been mislead as to the truth. We are no longer slaves to sin, because, by God's grace of the new birth we have been freed from its grip on us. The good news is that anyone who seeks for the truth will find it. I believe that such a one who heard such nonsense as "sin all you want" would know in their heart that it was not true. The Holy Spirit would speak to them.
There is a common slam against Martin Luther who it was claimed said, "Be a sinner, and sin boldly", to imply he preached such a Gospel as wanton sin in the face of God's grace. Yet, in researching this quote, I find that he said this in a context that does NOT imply what his detractors profess. I am not a Lutheran, but I feel he has been falsely maligned with just exactly the same brush as Evangelicals on this forum who are also wrongly accused of preaching such. From the link http://tquid.sharpens.org/sin_boldly.htm, we see:
Does justification by faith alone provide a license for sin? Luther was acutely aware of this allegation. In a sermon, he summarized the charge leveled against him: “Where the Gospel begins to loose the conscience of its own works, it seems to forbid good works and the keeping of the law. It is the common speech of all the teachers of the law, and of the scribes and doctors, to say: If all our works amount to nothing and if the works done under the law are evil, we will never do good. You forbid good works and throw away God's law; you heretic, you…wish to make bad people free.”
Luther understood that even our best efforts were tainted with sin. If God demands perfection in order for one to be justified before Him, no one would ever be justified. For Luther, justification was actually totally of works, but those works were perfect and performed by the perfect savior, Jesus Christ. These works are acquired by faith, imputed to the sinner. Luther says, “[I]f you desire to believe rightly and to possess Christ truly, then you must reject all works that you intend to place before and in the way of God. They are only stumbling blocks, leading you away from Christ and from God. Before God no works are acceptable but Christ's own works. Let these plead for you before God, and do no other work before him than to believe that Christ is doing his works for you and is placing them before God in your behalf.”
“Faith,” wrote Luther, “is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith.”[7] Luther scholar Paul Althaus notes: “[Luther] also agrees with James that if no works follow it is certain that true faith in Christ does not live in the heart but a dead, imagined, and self-fabricated faith."[8] The book of James describes a real true faith in Christ: a real saving faith is a living faith. If no works are found in a person, that faith is a dead faith (c.f. James 2:17). James then describes a dead faith: the faith of a demon. A demon has faith that God exists, that Christ rose from the dead- I would dare say a demon knows theology better than you or I. But is the faith of this demon a saving faith? Absolutely not.[9] Luther says, “Accordingly, if good works do not follow, it is certain that this faith in Christ does not dwell in our heart, but dead faith…”
Luther defines good works as those “works that flow from faith and from the joy of heart that has come to us because we have forgiveness of sins through Christ.”[12] Only what God commands is a good work: “Everybody should consider precious and glorious whatever God commands, even though it were no more than picking a wisp of straw from the ground.”[13] Works aren’t done because we want salvation and fear damnation. Luther says, “…[W]e are not to do them merely because we fear death or hell, or because we love heaven, but because our spirit goes out freely in love of, and delight in, righteousness.”[14] Luther plainly teaches that saving faith is a living faith.
The Letter to Melanchthon ends with the famous “sin boldly” statement:
“If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness, but, as Peter says, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner.”
“Therefore let us arm our hearts with these and similar statements of Scripture so that, when the devil accuses us by saying: You are a sinner; therefore you are damned, we can reply: The very fact that you say I am a sinner makes me want to be just and saved. Nay, you will be damned, says the devil. Indeed not, I reply, for I take refuge in Christ, who gave Himself for my sins. Therefore you will accomplish nothing, Satan, by trying to frighten me by setting the greatness of my sins before me and thus seducing me to sadness, doubt, despair, hatred, contempt, and blasphemy of God. Indeed, by calling me a sinner you are supplying me with weapons against yourself so that I can slay and destroy you with your own sword; for Christ died for sinners. Furthermore, you yourself proclaim the glory of God to me; you remind me of God's paternal love for me, a miserable and lost sinner; for He so loved the world that He gave His Son (John 3:16). Again, whenever you throw up to me that I am a sinner, you revive in my memory the blessing of Christ, my Redeemer, on whose shoulders, and not on mine, lie all my sins; for "the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all" and "for the transgression of His people was He stricken" (Is. 53:6-8). Therefore when you throw up to me that I am a sinner, you are not terrifying me; you are comforting me beyond measure.”
The strong hyperbolic comparison Luther makes between “sinning boldly” and believing and rejoicing in Christ “even more boldly” comes clear. When assaulted by the fear and doubt of Christ’s love because of previous sins or the remnants of sin in one’s life, one is thrust back into the arms of Christ “on whose shoulders, and not on mine, lie all my sins…”. Rather than promoting a license to sin by saying “sin boldly,” Luther’s point is to simply compare the sinner to the perfect savior. Left in our sins we will face nothing but death and damnation. By Christ’s victory over sin, death, and the world, we stand clothed in His righteousness, the recipients of His grace, no matter what we have done.
I will if it happens again, although I don’t expect it to, but as I said, it was some time ago and I cannot recall the exact thread and have no way of looking it up.
I understand that.
Nevertheless, I can relate what I know the Catholics I worked and lived with believe, correct doctrine or not. It may not be the official Vatican approved position of the Catholic church but it IS what in reality is being taught in the parishes I encountered.
There is a difference between what the Catholic church officially teaches at the Vatican level and what it really teaches at the local parish level.
And FWIW, it's not a problem exclusive to the Catholic church. I know other denominations which have had some pastors teach doctrine which didn't conform to the denominational position and when it was recognized, they were dealt with, but until then, there was no way anyone could do anything about it.
The only time I recall an incident in the Catholic church was when I was in junior high. There was a young, very popular with the kids priest who one day in his homily in mass dismissed the virgin birth, with a comment something like *Well, really, everyone KNOWS how someone gets pregnant.* You could about hear an audible gasp come up from the congregation. He disappeared rather quickly after that. I never did find out what happened to him, but clearly he got through seminary and was ordained by the church.
All that to say, just because he's been ordained as a priest is no guarantee of fidelity to official, Vatican approved Catholic doctrine. Unless there's a complaint to his superiors, the guy can keep going for a long time.
I would suspect that metmom and the thousands, millions (?) who have left your religion since the Reformation were taught the same catechesis by teachers who taught what they were taught by those who taught them...
So we have a few Catholics here who seem to have the time to spend their lives reading many of the untold numbers of commentaries of former Catholics...And it appears you are suggesting that all Catholics should read these things if they want to be properly catechized...And more than that, it's their responsibility if they want to know Catholicism in its entirety...
But from what I've seen, it's impossible to pin down any number of issues guiding your religion since many of the authors of these commentaries are all over the map on these issues...
I would venture to say that metmom and the others received the standard catechesis that all receive...
It appears that those who you guys claim were poorly catechized actually are only guilty of questioning some of what they were taught and sought answers from the real source of Truth, the words of God, the Bible...
There are far too many former Catholics who fall under the 'poorly catechized' category to believe they were poorly catechized...
The Catholics I know don't get into anything technical...They go to Mass and live their lives like the rest of us...They don't read bibles and probably not much else religion wise...
I don't believe metmom appealed to a 'poor catechesis'...That charge came from you and others on FR...
Short answer: I knew that. :-)
I mean about Luther and “sin boldly.”.
And your citations from Paul are to the point.
I think wherever we go, and in whatever, koff koff, faith community we find ourselves, we will see people who are humbly on fire for the truth, even if they are clueless about the, so to speak, content of the Truth.
And we will find others who treat their religion as a way to comfort or control. In the Episcopal Church I have known clergy for whom the priesthood was a decent way to make a living, and others who were truly dedicated servants.
And so in the Catholic church. I guess I would say that there is no way to express doctrine or to prescribe practice that cannot be turned into some sort of self-aggrandizement.
This is why one of my frequent prayers (usually at the Mass, when the priest is breaking the bread) is,
Lord, break my heart, for I trust that if you break it you will mend it and fill it with yourself, than whom I desire nothing and no one more.
Oh well. I’m babbling.
That's a great big 10-4 with sprinkles and a cherry on top.
And it's not just clergy. Lay people can instruct their kids in bad ways. The temptation to use God as a behavior control//guilt-inducing concept seems very hard to resist.
From my POV the parents are the principle evangelists of the home which is the child's first church. And at the heart of the Kerygma is the unmerited love of God.
But what we get is parents telling their four year olds, "If you do that, it will make Jesus VERY unhappy," which MAY be true, but it's not the truth the child needs to hear.
It's no surprise that many in the world have stopped listening to Christians. We ran them off with persistent, subtle DYSangelism while we claimed to be preaching Love.
As to what the Catholic Church teaches at the local level, well, there are locations and locations. I have heard the most exquisitely evangelistic sermons from some Dominicans and horribly legalistic sermons from some Protestants -- and vice versa.
I don't know. What I like about the clergy I hang with is stuff like this. We routinely pray in our Mass intercessions for the poor. Often this is a structured but ex tempore prayer led by the priest.
So one day I went to one of the guys and said, "You know, when we pray for the poor, I hear St. James grumbling. We need to pray for the grace to HELP the poor."
So the next time this guy presided at Mass, at the proper time, that's exactly what he did, and as far as I can tell, he has done so ever since.
So, I conclude, in a healthy parish there is back and forth between clergy and people. And as a corollary, when I encounter a priest who gets all up on his high horse in the face of suggestions, I treat him more or less as Jesus once said we should treat the Pharisees. I am respectful and attentive, but I count my change ... twice.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think, uh, drink.
There are far too many former Catholics who fall under the 'poorly catechized' category to believe they were poorly catechized...
I'm not sure how one can know that or what it means. My impression of the history of the Church is that it is a series of slow deviations corrected (or at least challenged) by sudden spectacular outbursts.
The slothful decadence of the eleventh and twelfth centuries was suddenly set alight by Francis and Dominic. And within a little while the Dominicans were themselves slothful -- so God sent another firebrand.
And it wasn't just clergy or conventual religious. Catherine of Siena, patroness (well A patroness) of my order, challenged the status quo and got all up in even the pope's grill!
When Spaniards were despoiling the New World, Dominicans (I'm not saying nobody else did, these are just the guys I know a little about) were denouncing conquistadors both in this hemisphere and back in Spain and arguing for the rights of even the un-evangelized indigenous peoples. They met stiff resistance, and their doctrinal and policy victory did not make a great impression on the secular conquistadors, but it was important in the history of political thought and especially the concept of international law.
And when in the 20th century American Catholicism managed to combine a stultifying moralism, a gloomy, anti-life Jansenism, and a precious antiquarianism, Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII) and Giovanni Battista Montini (Paul VI) somehow prompted a revolution the effects of which are still working through the Church, as first a POLACK (!) and now a KRAUT (for goodness sake!) challenge us to rededicate ourselves as the post-exilic Jews were rededicated at the water gate.
MOST Catholics who want nothing from their faith but ease will find their faith becoming more and more anemic, until it has no strength at all.
It is about an encounter with a Lord who is BOTH love itself AND a consuming fire. I would say to anyone, but especially to somnolent Catholics: If you're not ready to have Jesus rearrange your furniture, you might as well stay home.
So we have a few Catholics here who seem to have the time to spend their lives...
Well, not our lives. I gotta eat and pay taxes 'n stuff. But I don't eat out a lot or go to a lot of movies.
... their lives reading many of the untold numbers of commentaries of former Catholics...And it appears you are suggesting that all Catholics should read these things if they want to be properly catechized...And more than that, it's their responsibility if they want to know Catholicism in its entirety...
Oh, there's a lot here. It is not so necessary to "know Catholicism." But if a Catholic doesn't and he wants to question or to speak for Catholicism, he'd better start learning.
But it is no more necessary to "know Catholicism" to be in a relationship with Jesus than it is to be a physiologist to have a relationship with your spouse. But it couldn't hurt ...
I think one of the persistent causes for disagreement here clusters around the passages in Paul where he speaks of different gifts and different offices in the Church. My impression (perhaps wrong) is that few Protestants think that they are not called to be teachers, while plenty of Catholics are content not to be teachers (and too many quit being learners!)
The problem about going directly and only to Scripture has been discussed so many times that I will only file it by title. There seem to be a lot of wrecked ships on either side of the channel.
Okay, that's a big pile of ... words. (What did you think I was going to say?) Enough for now. Have a blessed day.
There are far too many former Catholics who fall under the 'poorly catechized' category to believe they were poorly catechized...
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!
That says it better than I could.
There is a difference between what the Catholic church officially teaches at the Vatican level and what it really teaches at the local parish level.It appears my entire 27 as a Catholic (12 years parochial school) must have been the deficient, ticket punching type of teaching.And FWIW, it's not a problem exclusive to the Catholic church. I know other denominations which have had some pastors teach doctrine which didn't conform to the denominational position and when it was recognized, they were dealt with, but until then, there was no way anyone could do anything about it.
That's a great big 10-4 with sprinkles and a cherry on top.
Never did I recall hearing of a personal relationship with Jesus. Rarely did I ever see anyone who modeled that relationship. My Parish in the North East was cold and lifeless. I knew of no other local Catholics who's experience was any different. If there Faith meant anything to them it was mostly an expression of relunctantly having to go to Mass.
Fortunately, God granted me salvation when after a part time pastor showed me the Gospel out of the Book of Romans and after believing in the free gift of salvation I was on cloud 9 for 6 months relating to anyone who would listen the Wonderful Grace of Jesus and His ability save sinners.
It it certainly wonderful that God saves many RC's, but I wonder why those enlightend, do not question why most RC churches are ticket punchers that produce tares. How can this be the norm if the Roman church is the ONE. Preaching the saving Gospel of Grace thru Faith is what SHOULD BE heard every Sunday, or else whats the point?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.